In a german book "V200 - Geschichte der Taigatrommel" (the german nickname "taigadrum" based on the M62´s special engine noise - able to vibrate house windows and doors.... ) about the 4 cycled M62 and it´s history the older 2 - cycled 2/3Te10´s are described being fitted with rubber bellows and automatic couplers between the loco parts - see the attached drawing.

Kolomna2Te10Drawing.jpg (27.71 KiB) Viewed 6993 times

Some pictures of the engine types can be seen at Kolomna´s historic website part - i´m sure this are no unknown sights for american railroaders......

Pleased to help, unfortunately i have no further informations about the locos except the fact that the Kolomna company had built a few thousands units of the older TE3. I´m sure much more further details would have been uploaded but without knowledge of the russian language we will hardly have a chance to find the pages.

Best regards, Markus
"You have to pay for doing experiences in your life - sometimes you get some discount" (Oskar Kokoschka)
My modelchairliftpage
http://www.modellseilbahnen.com

Besides the russian TE3 and TE10 locos we have to include the chinese DF3 diesels in our collection of FM - copies too. The DF and DF3 also based on the russian TE3 design.Here is a text from a chinese ebayer who offers H0 - DF3´s about the origin loco:

History of DF and DF3

In september 1958 Dalian locomotive and rolling Stock Works (DLoco) produced a 2 unit, 4000 horsepower diesel electric engine. This engine was based on the Soviet TE3 diesel engine. The prototype was given a vivid name -Julong (Giant Dragon). DLoco conducted many experiments and performed serveral enhancements on its major components and parts before it went into production.

According to the Sino-Soviet technology cooperation agreement, in 1959 the Soviets provided a full set of TE3 blueprints to DLoco. Based on these blueprints and the trial runs done on Julong. DLoco made improvements and redesigned its blueprints. In September 1964 the production of the diesel engine formally began. This locomotive was classified as ND (Nei Dian which means diesel electric in Chinese). In August 1966, the classification was changed from ND to DF (Dong Feng which means east wind) to represent good fortune. Since 1970 over 100 units of DF were produced annually. By 1973 a total of 706 units were built.

In order to fulfill the urgent need for dieselization of passenger services DLoco modified DF`s traction motor to increase the maximum speed from 100 km/h to 120 km/h. DLoco accomplished this by changing the gear ratio from 75/17 to 71/21. With this change came a new classification DF3. DF signified a gear ratio of 75/17 and was generally used for freight traffic, while DF3 signified a gear ratio of 71/21 and was used for passenger travel.

For 10 years between 1964 and 1973 DF`s and DF3`s were massively produced. During this time over 50% of the national diesel fleet was DF or DF3 class. However, in 1974, DF3`s role in passenger services gradually decreased because of the introduction of a more efficient and powerful diesel engine DF4. At this point many DF3`s were geared back to 75/17 and thus became DF class throughout the years. Thus, DF3s honourably retired.

Between 1983 and 1992 the role of DFs was for freight traffic. The number of DF`s reached its peak at 886 by 1990. DFs also held a record for length of service. The longest service span for a DF diesel engine was 35 years, and the second longest service span was 25 years. Most DFs slowly faded out of history`s stage. Now only a few remain in good condition and are being used for light switching jobs.

DF diesel engines were the backbone of early stage dieselization and have contributed tremendously to the development of China`s transit system. As the father and soul of China`s diesel engine DFs and DF3s have certainly played a vital role in the development of the China railway industry.

Think if FM would have got the licence amounts they surely would have reached a much better reputation and played a more important roll in the locomotive business too.

Best regards, Markus
"You have to pay for doing experiences in your life - sometimes you get some discount" (Oskar Kokoschka)
My modelchairliftpage
http://www.modellseilbahnen.com

Very interesting post! I never connected the DF and DF3 as being opposed piston. It's also nice to learn what "ND" and "DF" stand for. Did this person have any information on the DF4 series? If memory serves these units have a 4 stroke cycle V16 engine, but I don't know if this engine was domestically derived, or if it is a copy of something else...(the Kolomna 4 stroke perhaps?)

That´s the link to his shop:http://stores.ebay.at/RABY-BOOSTER_Dies ... idZ2QQtZkmHe has some detailed origin descriptions on each item but unfortunately no engine details for the DF4 but based on the sound i´m rather sure that the DF4 is fitted with a 16 cylinder 4 cycle diesel; sounds rather similar to the big Sulzer, GE or Alco diesel engines. The chinese ND - series had been built by Electroputere Craiova in Romania using Sulzer licences; later Electroputere uses Alco - licence built E and F engines for romanian and export locos to Greece so it seems to be possible that the chinese loco factory had used a Sulzer design based prime mover in the DF4. Will post more technical details about the russian Sergei (M62) and Ludmilla locos later here.

Best regards, Markus
"You have to pay for doing experiences in your life - sometimes you get some discount" (Oskar Kokoschka)
My modelchairliftpage
http://www.modellseilbahnen.com

FCP503 wrote:Very interesting post! I never connected the DF and DF3 as being opposed piston. It's also nice to learn what "ND" and "DF" stand for. Did this person have any information on the DF4 series? If memory serves these units have a 4 stroke cycle V16 engine, but I don't know if this engine was domestically derived, or if it is a copy of something else...(the Kolomna 4 stroke perhaps?)

The engine does look somewhat like a Sulzer engine. The camshaft access is a lot differant, as are the crankcase access hatches. Still the general layout is quite simular. The data I have doesn't say how many degrees apart the banks of cylinders are in the Sulzer engine. If it is 50 degrees then these engines may well share a common ancestry.

The mirrored turbo/aftercooler on each end is interesting, and it would be interesting to know if appreciable performance was gained from that arrangement. The Sulzer engines I have pics of have two turbos on the same end.

When hearing the sound of the DF4 (and DF11 too) i would believe they had a Sulzer - based engine cause it´s sounds harder under full load then thze big Alcos or Ge´s and this had been rather typical for the Sulzers.

Best regards, Markus
"You have to pay for doing experiences in your life - sometimes you get some discount" (Oskar Kokoschka)
My modelchairliftpage
http://www.modellseilbahnen.com

Weirder things have happened - post WWII, the British actually licensed jet engine designs to both the US and USSR (supposedly, even Stalin was surprised that they got such a license!). This created the interesting situation in the Korean war of planes with identical engines on both sides, shooting at each other.

Both sides also raided Germany for technical data - thus the old joke about their Germans vs our Germans in the space race.

I doubt any straight FM copy would have been that way for long - the Russians had no qualms about copying others (but then - nobody else did back then either!), but tended to use such copies as a basis, and make their own improvements. They do like letting others invent the wheel while they perfect it, though...

Nasadowsk wrote:I doubt any straight FM copy would have been that way for long

I wouldn´t see it that pessimistic... Railroads that did a careful service (like Virginian) got good results from their locos but for the most uneducated and not specially trained railway employees the FM´s had been unloved childs and so they would be handled by them. The Russian state railway did proper servicing with trained personal, Kolomna upgrades and further developements but FM surely would have done the same if they had stayed in the locomotive business.

Best regards, Markus
"You have to pay for doing experiences in your life - sometimes you get some discount" (Oskar Kokoschka)
My modelchairliftpage
http://www.modellseilbahnen.com

Petz wrote:I wouldn´t see it that pessimistic... Railroads that did a careful service (like Virginian) got good results from their locos but for the most uneducated and not specially trained railway employees the FM´s had been unloved childs and so they would be handled by them. The Russian state railway did proper servicing with trained personal, Kolomna upgrades and further developements but FM surely would have done the same if they had stayed in the locomotive business.

Oh, I didn't mean it was an unsuited engine - just that the Russians would have 'localized' it. They tended to do that. Of course, being effectively a whole different development line from FM, sooner or later, things would have been changed around from the FM design. As much as folks in the US like to think otherwise, the Russians really DO know what they're doing with stuff...